*sigh*
Active/Active Failover = Good! Pretty.
Active/Passive Failover = Meh...
Active/Passive that doesn't fucking work = GRRRR.

INCOMPETENCE!
( Axai is in Montréal, Canada O.o, Thu 24 Sep 2009, 15:26, 14 replies, latest was 17 years ago)

Somebody's going to have to explain this to me

( Bert Monkeysex is waiting for the mods to delete him, Thu 24 Sep 2009, 15:31, Reply)

Is it anything to do with sex?

( girlinthehole, Thu 24 Sep 2009, 15:33, Reply)

If it is
he's spelled impotence wrong
( Bert Monkeysex is waiting for the mods to delete him, Thu 24 Sep 2009, 15:34, Reply)

Active/passive.
Sounds a bit S&M to me.
( girlinthehole, Thu 24 Sep 2009, 15:38, Reply)

Marks and Spencers?

( Bert Monkeysex is waiting for the mods to delete him, Thu 24 Sep 2009, 15:39, Reply)

Nearly right.

( girlinthehole, Thu 24 Sep 2009, 15:40, Reply)

I work as a sysadmin for a small startup...
We have servers running here, one set of "Active" servers, i.e the ones processing the requests. We also have a set of "Passive" servers - the ones who will handle the requests if the Active ones go down.

Active/Passive works, but you've got a lead-time for it to detect one went down and remove it from the pool. However, it doesn't bloody work as I found out today when the whole bloody lot went down.

This is why we should use active/active.

Sigh.
( Axai is in Montréal, Canada O.o, Thu 24 Sep 2009, 15:52, Reply)

I read that as..... Sadism
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah go down. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah went down.
( girlinthehole, Thu 24 Sep 2009, 15:56, Reply)

Ahem
Active/Active Failover = Good! Pretty.
Active/Passive Failover = Meh...
Active/Passive that doesn't fucking work = GRRRR.

= GIBBERISH
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 24 Sep 2009, 15:57, Reply)

Not gibberish
Just severe nerdy talk ;(
( Axai is in Montréal, Canada O.o, Thu 24 Sep 2009, 15:58, Reply)

No offence guv

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 24 Sep 2009, 16:14, Reply)

Haha
None taken ;)

I needed to vent...
( Axai is in Montréal, Canada O.o, Thu 24 Sep 2009, 16:24, Reply)

As a wise colleague of mine once noted
A resource cluster that does not fail over...

...is not a cluster.

/fellow sysadmin geek
( chart cat has an itch, Fri 25 Sep 2009, 5:38, Reply)

*waves* Hello fellow sysadmin geek.
It is so true... Here they were attempting to use RedHat ClusterFuck, much to my disdain. I'm going to have stern words with them on Monday about doing. it. right.

I cant understand why, when we have such a high load application they are wasting 50% of the resources on standby failover. They're not even running it stepped back, it's just completely passive.

Did i mention the app they created is so monstrous it takes FOUR seconds to respond!?

The worst part is I'm 20, 10 years younger than them.
( Axai is in Montréal, Canada O.o, Fri 25 Sep 2009, 10:35, Reply)